Char_Master

Similar thing going on in my boat now. We have two rigger rods and two wire diver rods. Ran two 10 color lead rods with inline boards this season but the stiff rod necessary for inline boards and that much inline weight made fighting fish on those rods not nearly as enjoyable. Next season I plan on either adding another two downriggers to get four of them going (since Riggers catch 80% of all our fish) or get a couple of rods for super-heavy snap weights to use as shallow(er) setups off the inline boards.

If you're going for leadcore then I'd recommend possibly doing external boards to avoid more weight than necessary on the line when fighting fish.

LOL Red Fins Yet!! Go big or go home right!!, the guys are ****ing already about the lakers we have now!!, they are the Grand Daddy of lakers, they alone would eat the lake out of house and home. This has been an interesting thread from the start. One might think they know their fish and most do, "I like to think I do" but I got a real eye opener, with some of the species mentioned here. I know all was in fun and even a gleam in our eyes. But if I ever won the lottery I would like to fish for all of the above monsters of the deep fresh water fish. All in all I got one hell of a education. That's what this site is all about. PAP.

lol, adult GBL Redfins would probably try to eat the Chinooks haha! Ever read in to what those things eat in that lake with only 4-5 species of fish present? Most of their diet is made up of fully grown Arctic Greyling and Whitefish and the larger individuals will cannibalize on 8-16 pound Lakers like they're appetizers. Maybe that's exactly what the Lake O community would like, a bigger strain of Lake Trout that fight even harder (they are the Kings in my eyes ) and additionally will lessen the population size by eating smaller ones. Although, I can see it now, a 50" Redfin relentlessly chasing schools of 2-3 year old salmon like they were baitfish XD

just imagine if we got fresh eggs for kings say from the Kenai and the fish from those eggs took well to lake O.

Snaggers are going to need heavier rods . Now this is getting interesting, Skeena Steelhead, Kenai Chinooks, new Cohos (from anywhere at this point...), Seaforellen Browns (and why not throw in some Ferox strain too), and then for us crazy guys, some Great Bear Lake Redfins!

Just throwing this out there but there seems to be a lot of hybridization between coho and chinook, does this produce a stile offspring like splake or other hybrids? Could the hatchery be accidently taking some sterile hybrids?

Would love to see some skeena river steelhead added to the lake as well as seaforellen browns.

That's another good theory. I believe almost all of the Salmonid hybrids are sterile, but I could be wrong. Caught a "Pinook" last July in eastern Lake Erie but other than that I haven't personally encountered any hybrids.

Wonder how big Skeena chrome would get in the environment of Lake Ontario, certainly it would have to be larger than the domestic "Rainbow" strain Steelhead. Seaforellens would be great too, which, being a deeper strain, would make great bonus fish for guys deep trolling for Steelhead, Chinooks, and Lakers.

Georgian bay, part of lake huron has a self sustainting population of chinook that is supported by smelt and not alewife. Fish are smaller but the population is still healthy. Don't think the Chinook are going away anytime soon, decline in size and numbers maybe but short of targeted erratication effort they will be with us for a long time.

The atlantic salmon program has a slim chance of success they are a more sensitive species for sure. I'm not againt catching them but we're tying up a lot of funding and effort that could be better used elsewhere in my opinion. Not to mention canadian management decisions are negatively impacting returns of rainbow and chinook to support a non existent atlantic salmon fishery.

I don't understand the logic behind supporting native over naturalized species. Humans are part of the natural environment and ecosystems have constantly changed over time. We've accelated those changes in many cases but we are talking about successful sport fish that have high cultural and economic value, not an invasive pest species. Chinook are in some ways better adapted to our warmer rivers as they only spend a short time in the river system before smolting out to the lake. Coho, atlantics and rainbow spend longer in the river system and are more susceptible to high temperatures and droughts. Lake trout are obviously highly adaptable but suffer from poor natural reproduction and are not as desirable by the majority of anglers.

Back to gene editing, I would support its use after thorough testing. It's probably the only plausible way to erraticate the zebras which would be benifical to most sportfish. Walleye and sheephead did well before their introduction so I still don't see any potential negative impact of their eradication.

Georgian Bay was also, and still is, Lake Huron's largest stronghold of native strain Lake Trout too, so my guess would be that either the forage base and or water conditions in it allow for a multitude of species to thrive. I do have to agree with you here though, at least in Lake Ontario, Chinooks will most likely be around for longer than they will be in the other lakes.

Where would you suggest that these funds that Canada is using to restore Atlantic Salmon go instead? Canada is making greater progress with this program over the past several years and as long as efforts are maintained, I predict there will be an Atlantic Salmon fishery (at least in Canadian tributaries) available to anglers within the next 8-15 years. If this fishery does take form, it will likely attract many anglers to it who wish to pursue one of the most revered fish in the world. The reason that so many people flock to NY for Chinooks and Steelhead is because of tradition, it's been a thriving fishery for decades now and so obviously anglers would be attracted to it and want to protect it. A switch from Chinooks to Atlantics, regardless of how gradual, would be a major change in the fishery which is why I think many anglers are hesitant to support it.

As far as favoring native species over introduced ones, there's been debates over this for years and there will continue to be. Personally, I feel that humans have the responsibility to protect native species due to all the unnatural damage and changes that we cause in the environment where thousands of other species that can't do anything to protect themselves from these changes also reside. I think that native species have a natural right to exist that humans shouldn't be depriving entire populations of fish of (I'll stop with the philosophy now ). That said, I can also see the social and economic benefits that certain introduced species have as well, so I'm not fully against all introduced/invasive species. Now, speaking from my personal perspective instead of a more scientific one. I'd gladly make the 5.5-6 hour drive to the Salmon River several times in a season if Atlantics were in fishable numbers, and will make it up to troll the lake two or three times a year primarily for Lake Trout (with Steelhead and Browns on the side), but not solely for Chinook Salmon. So obviously someone enjoys and appreciates Lakers and Atlantics . And I have a few friends that think the same way too.

Last I remember they didn't have a great answer other then they where going to take the eggs at a lower temp then before.  basically this is an ongoing debate as to why as they used to have eye up rates around 60% now there like 20% sometimes. Personally I think the hatchery process is causing us to have sterile fish and we should get new eggs from out west.

Certainly a possible theory. I'd like to see some new Steelhead stocks as well, from BC populations such as the Skeena River, those would make some magnificent adult fish in the Great Lakes.

I see many fishermen catching fish with the nylon nets and many throwing them back and not reviving them before they swim off.I use a rubber net and make sure they are breathing good before I let them swim off.Quality for me is better than quantity knowing the fish is going to survive.In years past ive deen hundreds of dead fish that would have survived if handled properly.

Couldn't agree with you more here. It's like that on Erie too in the fall along creek mouths. Whenever I catch Salmonids, trolling of drifting, 10 FOW or 550 FOW, I always take at least 3-5 minutes holding them in the water before the release. Certain species seem tougher than others, Lake Trout are usually trying to drag me in with them within 30-60 seconds whereas steelhead swim away slow but stable after 4-5 minutes or longer, but eventually they all go back down if handled correctly (as in, netted, unhooked in the water, quickly measure length and girth, hold the fish correctly by the caudal peduncle and under the stomach horizontally for some quick pictures, revive, and release). The two biggest detriments to be health of these fish are too long out of the water and improper handling. If you're going to C&R, that is.

I believe they had some trouble in the past with sterile cohos.

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

Pertaining to Thiamin deficiency or something else?

I've seen Smelt, Shad, Shrimp, Spiny Fleas, and occasionally Gobies in Chinook Salmon I've caught over the years. The fact is, Lakers are less adaptive than Chinook to our changing Great Lakes. That's why they keep dumping them in Lake Michigan by the millions, because they haven't adapted well and haven't been reproducing naturally the way the Chinook has. The strain of Lake Trout that was natural is gone now. They are shoving a non-native strain of Lakers down our throats that barely anyone actually in touch with the fishery (and actually paying to support the fishery) wants. There is a new "natural" in our Lakes now. Things have evolved like they naturally will. Humans are part of this evolution and that is a natural thing. We are not above nature, just an unfortunate part of it.

Fleas too, that's interesting, I'll have to look further in to that. Thank you for more information, I appreciate it! I will say that Chinooks are doing better in Lake Ontario than any of the other Great Lakes, arguably even better than Lake Trout. But if you look to the midwest's upper Great Lakes, things are changing. Lake Michigan's Chinook population is dwindling while Steelhead, Browns, and Lakers are increasing in abundance. In Lake Huron, Chinooks are almost absent with Lake Trout and Atlantic Salmon populations increasing. And in Superior, Chinooks might as well be gone completely, for as often as they're actually caught, instead what is present is almost without a doubt the best native Lake Trout fishery in the United States with small but stable populations of Steelhead, Coho Salmon, and Pink Salmon. Whether Lake Ontario will follow this trend remains to be seen, but this is just what's happening in the upper lakes and what I predict will also occur in the lower ones too.

No I don't so. The zebras are trapping a large portion of nutrients that could be (and was in the past) available to game fish higher on the food chain. Pretty much everything did better before the zebra mussles invaded. Would you rather have that biomass available as baitfish or as zebra mussle? I know what I would choose. You can argue if alewifes are a good food source but I can't see any positive impacts from zebra mussle.

I'd much rather have it available as forage species, no question about that. However, I don't think it's worth the potential consequences to attempt to gene edit the mussels, which is why I'm saying make the best of our current situation.

Chinook will forage on many different types of bait if they are available and they have done just that through their stint in the Great Lakes. Why would it be any different than in the Ocean where, as you stated, the feed on a diverse forage base? If the Chinook fail to survive in the Great Lakes it will be because the huge amount of Lake Trout our Government wants to shove down our throats will have eaten them out of house and home...Back to topic...

What are some of the other dominant forage species you've seen they consume? The past several GLFC and fisheries reports I've read seem to point to Chinooks being the least diverse feeders for one reason or another. As far as Lake Trout are concerned, I'd like to see them at historic highs to the point where the population is what is used to be and is completely naturally producing. They're also a native species that has shown to be much more adaptable to a diverse forage base such as Round Gobies, Sculpins, Smelt, and Ciscos and with shifting water conditions. Personally, I'd rather catch Lake Trout than Chinooks, but that's completely beside the point, being which species are more adaptable. This is still pertaining to the topic which branches off of whether it's worth the risk to the entire system to attempt to edit the genes of zebra mussels, which I do not believe it is.

It occurs to me that you are predicting the demise of the chinook.

Yes, I am. First Chinooks and eventually Cohos. Steelhead and Pinks do appear to be doing fine, though, so they'll likely be around for much longer. It's no surprise, the Chinook is a native of the Pacific Ocean, emphasis on ocean, which has an abundant and diverse forage base to support the species. They thrived in the Great Lakes when alewives were at their peak, and quite honestly I think their initial introduction turned out to be quite successful in controlling alewives. But don't forget, the whole reason they were introduced was to eradicate the invasive alewives, and now that the alewives are disappearing as they should be, the Chinooks are lacking a food source to thrive on. Just observations, nothing more. Many people are making a big deal of the decline of this sport fish, which is understandable, seeing as how it is an incredible fighter that still tastes good and attracts millions of dollars for local economies. But don't forget, the Great Lakes are a dynamic system that lately (the past 200 years) are constantly changing, and not all species, especially introduced ones from a completely different environment, are able to adapt to these changes. More people, especially anglers, need to accept this, which will only lead to further improving the fisheries of the Great Lakes. Obviously, I can't see in to the future, but if I were to predict the populations of the various species over the next 10-20 years it would be: a decrease in Alewife population eventually leading to a major change. At this point, either there will be no pelagic forage to support many of the salmonids which will result in a partial system crash, or more adaptable pelagic forage (Ciscos, Smelt, Shiners) will take their place and support the fishery. Round goby and mussel populations will most likely remain the same. Lake Trout, Brown Trout, and Atlantic Salmon populations will increase. Steelhead population will remain the same. Coho Salmon population will drop anywhere from slightly to severely. Chinook Salmon population will drop severely or disappear.

Again, this is only my prediction based on studying the Great Lakes and Ontario fisheries and individual population behavior. Why do I think Chinooks will disappear? Because they've displayed time and again in the Great Lakes that they're unable to adapt to feed on other species of forage and seem to be almost completely dependent on Alewives, whereas all of the other species, particularly the three whose populations I predict will increase, are the most diverse and adaptable feeders. If anyone would like me to elaborate further, I'd be more than happy to, and quite honestly enjoy these kinds of scientific discussions, as I'm going in to the fields of freshwater biology and ichthyology.

Gene editing isn't something that should be taken lightly. It can have severe environmental consequences that may well not be worth the risk. Once something like this is started, it's virtually impossible to stop as well. In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to do what we can with the situation that we have concerning invasives. Zebra mussels are taking many of the nutrients out of the water in the Great Lakes, yet, many of those nutrients aren't supposed to be there in the first place and are being dumped, seeped, etc. in by human activity. Studies have shown that species more adaptable to Oligotrophic environments are adapting quite well to the presence of zebra mussels, like Lake Trout, Atlantic Salmon, Steelhead, Burbot, and to a degree, Brown Trout. Certain native species are also predating heavily on them such as Lake Sturgeon, Drum, Redhorse, and other Sucker species. As far as having enough nutrients to support a large forage base, Alewives aren't going to make it much longer, plain and simple. Nor should they, they're an extremely unhealthy non-native forage species that we have the capability and the natural order of the Great Lakes system has even been trying to eradicate for the past several years, just take a look at Lakes Huron and Superior, both of which no longer have any considerable sized population of Alewives yet both are more and more supporting healthy communities of many native species as well as introduced, adaptable species like Steelhead, Atlantic Salmon, and Pink Salmon. I could go in to much greater detail about this, but for now, I'll leave it at this.

I'm curious about a few things pertaining to this topic. Forgive me if the answers to some of these are obvious as I'm new (last spring-ish) to observing and taking part in Lake Ontario's fisheries.

To start, I see that they're aiming to collect 1.8 million Coho eggs and 3.0 million Chinook eggs, but from what I've seen, Chinooks very much dominate the fishery. If all of these eggs are spread out equally over various NY Lake Ontario tributaries, then why aren't the Coho returns as high as one would expect? If I had never seen the numbers of fish that constitute tributary runs, I'd say there should be at least a single Coho for every two to three Chinooks, but that doesn't appear to be the case. More like a single Coho for every 20-30 Chinooks.

Second, approximately how many Atlantic Salmon are stocked in Lake Ontario tributaries annually? Based on what I've seen, the overall catch rate seems to be a single Atlantic for every 100-200 Chinooks, or something roughly around that ratio. I thought I'd heard about 50,000 total per year somewhere but I'm not sure how recent that statistic is. They do seem to be slightly increasing in abundance (not that they're abundant in any way) over the past several years, but still appear to be a rare catch among anglers.

For the time being, I'll jeep my thoughts and ideas on the fishery to myself until I receive more unbiased information on the stocking, NR, and return rates for these species, but I do have strong opinions about the fishery, both the abundance and diversity of the salmonids and the forage populations.

Somehow this tread went from DEC to Atlantics....Here is one of the largest I had the privilege of slipping a net under.  Over my 30 years fishing LO, I would estimate a total of maybe 50 landed.  Not a one of them in over 150 feet of water.  The only thing more rare than an Atlantic is an Atlantic out deep.

 

 

atlantic.JPG

I'd say that's about the size of the one I lost. That's an incredible fish man, hopefully I get another shot at one like that some day.

No that's great. Don't doubt you. Great job. But on the contrary, Steelhead are my favorite on aerobatics,(freshwater). IMO, steelhead take that cake hands down.

Atlantics are good but not like a steelhead.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

I'll have to catch a few more Atlantics before I can make a decision ether way, but I suppose that's a good problem haha.

How did u know it was a Atlantic, some have problems identifying when they actually have them on board. Just curious.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

It was unmistakable, silver body with a grey back, black spots scattered over the top, typical Atlantic head shape with the very slightly upturned bottom jaw. Also never seen a Steelhead or Chinook clear 5' out of the water before, man that was a sight, permanently ingrained in my memory from that trip.

Do you have a pic of this fish?? Would love to see pic of a 20lb Atlantic.

Capt Rich

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

Sadly, no. Lost him a couple hundred feet back and I was in a state of near depression for the next week lol. Had him close a few times then he decided to run 395' back and start tail walking, trashed the spoon pretty good!

When you gain more experience on Lake Ontario you will change your tune. Kings fight 10xs harder than Atlantics.

Perhaps, considering by largest King was 6 pounds. But, we'll see

They run the Salmon river in May and again in September.  People who target them are very secretive and protective of them. Cayuga and Seneca Lakes have fishable numbers.  You may be waiting another decade before you catch another one in Lake Ontario.

I wasn't aware that there were enough of them to support any sort of decent run, that's good to know. If it wasn't so far to the Salmon River for me then I'd check it out in May. Hopefully the Atlantics make a come back within the next decade, they're one of the best fighting fish I've ever caught, maybe even harder fighting than Lakers and Chinooks, but I also caught a pretty big one so that may be why it felt like that.

Do a lot targeting Atlantics do ya?

Caught my first one this August that had to be over 20 pounds so now I'm addicted! Sadly there's no where I fish on a routine basis with them so I'm going crazy waiting for another opportunity to fish for them.

Thiaminase breaks down thiamine, which is more commonly called vitamin B1 and is an essential nutrient. Alewives are high in thiaminase. Trout that eat alewives can experience vitamin B1 deficiencies, which leads to reproductive failure. It's species-specific and depends on how much of the diet is comprised of alewives, among other things.

Thank you for the clarification!

Lake Michigan is where they are getting the eggs for Hatchery. They actually bust through the ice in January through February to get the big boat out to the center of Lake Michigan. They stocked over 50,000 in Lake Ontario last year. That's another reason why blue and silver and purple and silver is a good spoon choice out deep. Whoops, I let that one out of the bag.

I haven't heard of any reports of them harvesting spawn eggs from Ontario yet.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Alewives carry high levels of thianamse. Ciscoes and Herring - low levels. Therefore ciscos are way healthier for trout and salmon.

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

Was it Thiamine or Thiaminase? I thought I remember them saying that Alewives have high Thiamine which is bad and Ciscos have high Thiaminase which is an enzyme that breaks down Thiamine.

I'll look more in to the Vitamin D too.

Ciscos / Herring are very low in Thianamase.  This is what we were told at the state of the lake meetings.

Hmm, maybe I'm getting mixed up with my chemistry. But I definitely recall that Ciscos are a healthier forage source and that excessive Alewife consumption will cause reproductive issues in Lake Trout. If I'm remembering right, whatever harmful substance is present in Alewives can cause early mortality syndrome in Lake Trout eggs, not allowing them to survive past a certain point (the embryo stage, I think). I was reading this a few places but the GLFC wrote a great article on Lake Trout reproduction (focused on how Lakers are starting to thrive again in Lake Huron), I'll see if I can dig it up.

Remember it's a food Web we are trying to create. Atlantics and LT love cisco. Salmon love alewifes. There is a prism of life here that has to work together. We are trying to play god the best we can on this lake. It starts with the plankton. Which brings other issues, (zebra mussels,etc). even the bait fish needs food.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Yes, trying to balance this system of natives, unwanted non-natives, and introduced non-native species is a challenge, especially when you consider that every angler has different preferences. Personally I'd rather see more Lakers, Atlantics, and Browns while many trollers prefer more silver fish (Chinooks, Cohos, Steelhead).